MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015937731 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-136

Vitamin and mineral supplements in pregnancy and the risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a case-control study

2007· article· en· W2015937731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John D. Dockerty, Peter Herbison, D C Skegg, Mark Elwood

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLotto New ZealandOtago Medical Research FoundationA.B. de Lautour Charitable Trust
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsVitaminPregnancyPublic healthChildhood leukaemiaObstetricsCase-control studyPediatricsEpidemiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An earlier case-control study from Western Australia reported a protective effect of maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy on the risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). The present study tested that association. METHODS: A national case-control study was conducted in New Zealand. The mothers of 97 children with ALL and of 303 controls were asked about vitamin and mineral supplements taken during pregnancy. RESULTS: There was no association between reported folate intake during pregnancy and childhood ALL (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5-2.7). Combining our results with the study from Western Australia and another study from Québec in a meta-analysis gave a summary OR of 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.1). CONCLUSION: Our own study, of similar size to the Australian study, does not support the hypothesis of a protective effect of folate on childhood ALL. Neither do the findings of the meta-analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207